The saga continues;
Pacific Blue takeoff 'recipe' for catastrophe
JOHN EDENS IN QUEENSTOWN Last updated 15:51 15/03/2012
A midwinter Pacific Blue takeoff from Queenstown was a recipe for a potentially catastrophic accident, a senior Civil Aviation Authority manager says.
A 54-year-old Auckland pilot has appeared for the ninth day of a defended hearing before Judge Kevin Phillips on charges of operating a Boeing 737 in a careless manner.
The pilot, who has interim name suppression, has denied the charge, laid by the Civil Aviation Authority.
The CAA alleges the pilot should not have taken off for Sydney after 5.14pm on June 22, 2010, because Pacific Blue rules stipulated departing aircraft at Queenstown needed at least 30 minutes before civil twilight at 5.45pm.
The aircraft departed at 5.25pm.
CAA general manager of airlines Mark Hughes described the applicable civil aviation rules pertaining to the PB89 takeoff from Queenstown.
He told the court the captain and the first officer declined to be interviewed by the authority and it appeared the pilot-in-command had not reported the incident of his own volition.
The aircraft departed in excess of a company 16-knot crosswind minimum on a narrow runway with a lack of visual cues, he said.
"'Any significant wind change could have resulted in a catastrophic runway excursion.''
Examples of runway excursions included a veer-off in December 2008, when a Boeing 735-500 left the runway before takeoff from Denver International Airport in the US.
He said the Pacific Blue aircraft was able to climb with two engines from the main ascent reference point, a waypoint between Deer Park Heights and The Remarkables.
''Due to good performance of all engines it could climb, if that performance was compromised by engine failure the aircraft would likely not have been able.
''The consequences of this could have been catastrophic.
''The defendant's decision to depart created a high-risk situation if the aircraft suffered an engine failure.
''Absence of accident should not be viewed as acceptable safety performance.
''(It was) a recipe for an accident.''
The aircraft flew low over the Frankton Arm to maintain visual navigation below the cloud ceiling, around Kelvin Heights and Deer Park Heights to an altitude 600 feet below the required waypoint minimum, the court was told.
Lawyer Matthew Muir told the court the defence case said altitude at the waypoint was higher.
Hughes said risk factors included the aircraft's descent after takeoff, which triggered a ''don't sink'' alarm, the first officer calling ''speed'', the increase in acceleration and thrust, a steep bank angle, which triggered a second cockpit alarm, and continuous turbulence.
Such factors could contribute to spatial disorientation, the ''surprise'' element and loss of control in flight, he said.
''A pilot is not allowed to second guess the reported weather."
''(There was) considerable increased risk for all on board.''
The hearing continues.
- © Fairfax NZ News